Seems as if I got under his "skin"

quote:

---

.... The problem is that we know the claim the phrase was connected with Gill in 1922 is a fraudulent statement. Keep looking...and find me an example of E. King Gill being associated with the school's 12th Man tradition. There isn't one until 1962, almost 40 years after the school claims. ...

So that is the issue. Not whether the phrase was sparingly used in the yearbook, but how the school corroborates its claim that in 1922 it started using the phrase as a remembrance someone the school pretty much forgot about for forty years.

Show me any instance you can find from between 1922 and 1962 where the school in any way connected its 12th Man tradition with E. King Gill as the university claims in its federal court filings. Not occasional instances of the phrase in a yearbook every year or two, but specific instances where the phrase is connected to E. King Gill as was explained in the federal court filing. Here's a hint - they don't exist, because the claim the university started using the phrase "12th Man" in 1922 in remembrance of E. King Gill is a fraud. If they existed, they would be on display on campus with the other Gill memorabilia. No one believes the university has thousands upon thousands of examples of Gill connected with the phrase "12th Man" from 1922 to 1962 that the school is just too humble to put them on display. They have ZERO. Its the biggest **** lie in the history of the school. Its a fraud!

And that is what is going to be explained, hopefully soon, in a major publication. Whoop!

---

Hmmm. Isn't there a pdf floating around the internet of a 1942 DMN article about Major E. King Gill, the "Texas Ag of Twelfth Man Fame", serving in the WW2 effort as a flight surgeon at an Army base?

Said this from the beginning of Randy's crusade: does he even know what is required to prove fraud generally or, more particularly, fraud on the USPTO? I am curious how the statements he alleges are incorrect (even assuming he is right) are material and would have affected the decision on the application? Also curious how he thinks anyone would go about proving the fraudulent intent required.

Just for reference, in case anyone is interested:


"A third party may petition to cancel a registered trademark on the ground that the registration was obtained fraudulently. Fraud in procuring a trademark registration or renewal occurs when an applicant knowingly makes false, material representations of fact in connection with his application. A party seeking cancellation of a trademark registration for fraudulent procurement bears a heavy burden of proof. Indeed, the very nature of the charge of fraud requires that it be proven 'to the hilt' with clear and convincing evidence. There is no room for speculation, inference or surmise and, obviously, any doubt must be resolved against the charging party.

Mandated by the statute and caselaw, the Board had consistently and correctly acknowledged that there is a material legal distinction between a 'false' representation and a 'fraudulent' one, the latter involving an intent to deceive, whereas the former may be occasioned by a misunderstanding, an inadvertence, a mere negligent omission, or the like. In other words, deception must be willful to constitute fraud."

In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

So what's the materiality in the mark being attributed to E. King Gill or not in the '30s and '40s? Is It Duke's contention that this fact was important to the decision to grant the TM? Also, how does his "evidence" demonstrate a fraudulent intent on the filing? Even if you grant a mistake was made, the intent to deceive on this (non-material) fact sure would be an uphill climb.

quote:

---

Even if you grant a mistake was made, the intent to deceive on this (non-material) fact sure would be an uphill climb.

---

This is Randi's Everest. I believe that he will continue climbing until he gives up the ghost.

I think Randy is the one that found the DMN article from the 40s. He doesn't quote maybe the biggest key element from that story in any of his essays if I recall. His biggest problem seems to be the EKG story and the origination of when he became the 12th Man. Well, based on the DMN column, it was sometime before 1944. Such a dumb, stupid ass argument.

The bottom line is, someone made a bet earlier & he didn't take it. Money talks...

You haven't heard? He has provided all pertinent documents to the Colts attorney, external attorney, cowchip, and now a mysterious reporter that is writing a novel that is going to blow out all of our tradition lies! What a loser and pathetic human

quote:

---

Any one else remember the great opus he promised debunking the origins of the Aggie War Hymn around Memorial Day??

That included such memorable claims that trench warfare in WWI didn't occur during rains??

---

Cause foxholes and trenches would fill with rain, or some asinine ****.

Our esteemed colleague caught in another lie. Imagine that!

But still he has his acolytes who will spread his BS throughout the internet. I really hope Chip takes him seriously and writes something based upon his tripe. Would be the absolute end to Chip's career.

Something like this:

Wait, EKG played in the game?

No, read it again.

"Available records fail to disclose that he played in the game, which A.&M. finally won, 22 to 14, in a major upset".

That's worded so oddly.

Agree the wording is not the best. But I haven't seen any supporting documents he played. Only that he came from the stands and suited up.

Didn't this dip**** also try to claim that Gill wasn't even present.

quote:

---

"Available records fail to disclose that he played in the game, which A.&M. finally won, 22 to 14, in a major upset".

That's worded so oddly.

---

Agree. It should say "whether he played in the game." Typesetters were not above "editing" an article to make the columns fit back then.

Yeah but that isn't from a local paper, and is therefore invalid /Randy

That poster only has like 8 posts. My bet is he gets negged to oblivion and banned within the next hour.

Randy's response:

quote:

---

Nice work, sport. As I requested, show me any instance you can find from between 1922 and 1962 where the school in any way connected its 12th Man tradition with E. King Gill as the university claims in its federal court filings.

In their federal court filings, the university claims the school (not some random sportswriter unconnected with the school) has used the mark 12TH MAN (hereinafter, the "12TH MAN Mark") in connection with sporting events and numerous products and services. The 12TH MAN Mark was initially adopted in 1922 as a remembrance of a student at Texas A&M, E. King Gill.

I have conceded, for the sake of argument, that Gill came from the stands on Jan 2, 1922. The problem is that no one cared, not one noticed him and no one thought anything of it until at least 1939, when the fictitious radio play that had him as the only substitute (not one of 10 as actually was the case).

There is not a single bit of evidence to support the university's claim that the 12TH MAN Mark was initially adopted in 1922 as a remembrance of a student at Texas A&M, E. King Gill. There is not a single instance of the school making any mention as Gill in connection with the 12th Man mark prior to 1939 (your story is dates 1941), because there was no 12th Man tradition in remembrance of E. King Gill prior to the 1939 radio play. That claim is entirely fraudulent and we know this because Gill explains there was 12th Man tradition in remembrance of E. King Gill that started in 1922.

---

quote:

---

The only real question about the school's fraud is, especially as the fraudulent claims were known in the federal court filings, whether the scheme constitutes federal criminal fraud. I believe it does.

---

LOL.

So we have a second 12th Man?

How the hell did they ever trademark "Hook 'Em Horns" by Randy's standards?

Sips

quote:

---

Our esteemed colleague:

quote:

---

I've just finished up a rather big project and am getting caught up on crap. I was laughing at my thread over on TOS, the one that idiot "doctor" started where he was gloating over the fictitious $35 million each SEC school made from SECN (what is it about **** and fictitious stories?).

One of them sure put me in my place. He is pretty sure he has disproven all my 12th Man research. Apologies for hijacking the thread for a moment, but I need to slap a nut squeezer back into his place.



DVM97
11:25a L AG
What a jackwad! I have a copy of the 1933 Longhorn where the 12th man is mentioned. Idiot.
They have the mentality of little children in that they don't grasp even simple concepts very well.

Well, DMV, here is the problem.

In paragraph 7 of the complaint the school filed against the Colts, the university explains the school's 12th Man "tradition"


Since as early as 1922, Texas A&M has used the mark 12TH MAN (hereinafter, the "12TH MAN Mark") in connection with sporting events and numerous products and services. The 12TH MAN Mark was initially adopted in 1922 as a remembrance of a student at Texas A&M, E. King Gill, and his spirit of readiness to serve Texas A&M's football team in time of need.
The 12th Man trademark is supposedly connected with E. King Gill starting in 1922. While you may find occasional incidences where the phrase may show up in a school yearbook, those incidences mean nothing unless they are directly connected with E. King Gill. What we are wondering is how the school corroborates their claim that the phrase was adopted in 1922 in connection with E. King Gill. (Of course we know there was absolutely ZERO connection between Gill and the phrase or any school "tradition" between 1922 and 1939 because Gill himself repeatedly told is that in 1964)

The problem is that we know the claim the phrase was connected with Gill in 1922 is a fraudulent statement. Keep looking through those yearbooks and find me an example of E. King Gill being associated with the school's 12th Man tradition. There isn't one until 1962, almost 40 years after the school claims. And in the 1962 yearbook, Gill is cluelessly referred to as "King S. Gill" (hardly a revered hero when you don't even know his name).

So that is the issue. Not whether the phrase was sparingly used in the yearbook, but how the school corroborates its claim that in 1922 it started using the phrase as a remembrance someone the school pretty much forgot about for forty years.

Show me any instance you can find from between 1922 and 1962 where the school in any way connected its 12th Man tradition with E. King Gill as the university claims in its federal court filings. Not occasional instances of the phrase in a yearbook every year or two, but specific instances where the phrase is connected to E. King Gill as was explained in the federal court filing. Here's a hint - they don't exist, because the claim the university started using the phrase "12th Man" in 1922 in remembrance of E. King Gill is a fraud. If they existed, they would be on display on campus with the other Gill memorabilia. No one believes the university has thousands upon thousands of examples of Gill connected with the phrase "12th Man" from 1922 to 1962 that the school is just too humble to put them on display. They have ZERO. Its the biggest **** lie in the history of the school. Its a fraud!

And that is what is going to be explained, hopefully soon, in a major publication. Whoop!

---

---

Wow dude. Traditions don't happen over night. In fact, things aren't often appreciated until many, many years later. We didn't just act like the colts and Seahawks and up and start being the '12th man' one day. It grew over time. Chill out old man

This guy doesn't even know the definition of the word 'humble'.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Wow dude. Traditions don't happen over night. In fact, things aren't often appreciated until many, many years later. We didn't just act like the colts and Seahawks and up and start being the '12th man' one day. It grew over time. Chill out old man

This guy doesn't even know the definition of the word 'humble'.

---

They do on the 40 acres. They make something up in response to us and BOOM! a tradition is born. No matter who they stole it from.

---

Like their obnoxious drum?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Wow dude. Traditions don't happen over night. In fact, things aren't often appreciated until many, many years later. We didn't just act like the colts and Seahawks and up and start being the '12th man' one day. It grew over time. Chill out old man

This guy doesn't even know the definition of the word 'humble'.

---

They do on the 40 acres. They make something up in response to us and BOOM! a tradition is born. No matter who they stole it from.

---

What he doesn't understand is that the twelfth man isn't just a name we call ourselves. It isn't just gill. It's the idea of Aggies doing whatever it takes to help their team win. Texas A&M isn't the 12th man, the students are.

Gill went down to help his team. So all Aggies now are ready to help their team in any way possible. That's the 12th man.

I've probably Stepped on A&M's campus a total of 5 times in my life and yet I know this.

Some booster paid for the drum. It was in a basement at University of Chicago, as I recall, and he had it refurbished.

Who has that picture of the corps spelling out "12th Man" at Kyle Field years before 1939? Would that blow a hole in Randy's idiotic argument yet again?